portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article commentary global

faith & spirituality

Some social commentary on the Intelligent Design Experiment

Continuing the discussion

A report back on my Intelligent Design Experiment

The following discussion references my previous pages on 'Intelligent Design', links to which I post here in case someone is unfamiliar with the experiment.

"Intelligent Design"(?) - A scientific experiment as well as Report Back On Intelligent Design Experiment, March 3rd, 2006.

In my first posting I made a prediction that new skin was about to grow on an area on the bridge of my nose that remained purplish-red, because that area was stinging in the days before I posted my first report, and such stinging always seemed to occur before such regeneration took place in the past. This has happened as I expected it would, and that area on the bridge of my nose is no longer purplish, but instead it is red mixed with some pinkish patches of normal skin.

The whole process is occurring very slowly due to the fact that I became addicted to cigarettes years ago, and when I began the experiment I made up my mind that I would not fight that addiction at that time, since I did not want to introduce any uncontrolled variables into the experiment (what I mean is that I did not want to introduce doubts, such as 'my nose was repaired because I quit smoking'). It is an established fact that smoking cigarettes slows down the healing process, and given how slowly the changes occur this confirms that the changes taking place are natural, and not supernatural, since something like a cigarette would not slow down a supernatural process.

I have made up my mind to have this preliminary experiment done by Easter, 2006, which is a little over a month away as I am writing this, and given that most of the work has already been done, that seems doable. For this reason I am going through that grueling ordeal of kicking the cigarette habit, since the introduction of that variable into the experiment is no longer a concern, and I would like to speed up the process.

A sand bagging operation

It is also worth noting here that I have posted a 'help wanted' as I search for a scientist to participate in this experiment. Help Wanted : Scientist to work on 'Intelligent Design' experiment. So far I have not received any response, which I think is very unusual, since you would think that someone would want to watch with fascination as this experiment progresses. I also think that I am involved in what could justifiably be called the most significant scientific experiment of the 21st century, one for the history books. However I am also bringing into questions fundamental axiomatic assumptions of science, which would then have a ripple effect and bringing into questions scientific theories in fields outside of biology, since the same axioms are found to be the foundation stone in many fields of science.

Therefore I am assuming that the reason I would be getting the sand bag treatment while I perform this experiment is in part because scientists have a long tradition of being very dogmatic when it comes to axioms, which then leads scientists to behave like religious people and fight against each new paradigm shift in the sciences. The problem is so persistent that according to the physicist Max Planck, most scientists would drop dead before they would change their theories, and it requires a generational shift, he said, before a new scientific idea becomes the norm, since that is how long it takes for the current generation of scientists to either retire or drop dead. For this reason I am anticipating life long resistance from scientists and I have resigned myself to the idea. A second reason for resistance could be that scientists must publish papers, and then list those publications, and when a paradigm shift occurs, suddenly those papers become obsolete, leaving a scientist with no papers to list. A third reason for resistance could be that scientists must operate within the environment of the capitalist system, which means that they are dependant on funding, and given the prevailing ethos, it also means that most science is now subordinated to the profit motives of corporations, with governments 'privatizing' and 'outsourcing' in this area as well, thus leading universities and scientists to become dependant on corporate largesse, and thus subordinated to a corporate agenda. Which would then cause them to stay about ten million miles away from me, to avoid getting in trouble with their sponsors.

While we are on the subject of 'capitalists',. I thought I would mention that it is part of my long term plan to use this 'Intelligent Design' experiment as a 'wedge strategy'. Now capitalism is a the current prevailing form of alpha male patriarchy, such male domination of the planet having gone through stages, with the character of each stage dependant upon the technological development of society in each epoch. So we saw 'slave driving systems' in the ancient world, and then we saw such things as the 'feudal landlord system', and then we saw capitalism, which is another form of social inequality and alpha male domination.

The Bible is a useful archeological relic which can be studied to understand patriarchy. What we discover is that patriarchy in the Bible is bound together with male sexual domination. Men wanted to have sex with multiple partners, but they did not want to catch a sexually transmitted disease, and so they placed ruthless sexual rules upon women, who were expected to be chaste and monogamous, so that men could have sex with multiple partners. You can see this is the book of Proverbs where the female vagina is described as a festering, puss filled cavern of death. You can also see this is the laws regulating trade in female slaves, for a man can sleep with his female slaves, but if he does he can then no longer market those female slaves, since this would open a potential transmission route for sexually transmitted diseases. Therefore, before a man picked out female slaves to have sex with, he was required to take into consideration economic considerations, for if he wanted to make money off that female slave, the Bible explicitly states that he must not have sex with that slave, and then try to sell her to someone else. We also see that men could sleep with female sex workers, while at the same time it was the law to burn female sex workers at the stake, or stone them to death. The Bible tells us the story of a man who slept with a female sex worker, and then hypocritically demanded that a female sex worker be burned at the stake, putting on display the obvious double standard.

The same pattern emerges in the study of all patriarchal laws in the Bible. Patriarchy is bound together with male sexuality, which then means that patriarchy is reaction to the human aging process. Getting rich and establishing domination is a way of beating the odds. Patriarchy is a self replicating system, in that the systems of domination and the violence and aggression associated with the maintenance of such systems then lead to the development of a mind set that somehow 'Social Darwinism' (as it has been called) is the norm for human societies.

Therefore we can think of 'winning the game' and 'claiming the prize' to be a way of entering 'the Garden of Eden'. It is the common belief that getting rich is the ticket to Eden, this being the only Eden most people on this planet have ever seen, and the only Eden they ever expect to see. Naturally, having won the game, and entered that Eden, you can understand how people would become pugnacious and aggressive, and refuse to leave, for leaving would mean leaving the Garden of Eden, and who would want to do a thing like that? Capitalism, I would then postulate, is the natural outgrowth of the mind of some atheist. You can see that same mind set at work when people dream about winning the lottery, and thus escaping this world system, and going off to spend some time in the Garden instead, having won the game. Even people who are not Capitalists themselves have that same mind set, having bought into the idea that the Garden of Eden and getting really rich are equivalent concepts, since that is the only Garden that is known to exist.

Now as everyone would know I am not an atheist, but rather a theist, and so it should not be thought unusual that I would not associate the Garden of Eden with money, but rather I would postulate that the Garden is a place one can enter for free. For truly, I would suggest, the best things in life are free, and there are some things that money just can't buy.

Some Gardens are better than others, in that you can enjoy some Gardens, but some you cannot. For example, if you try to enter that paltry Garden that so many people dream of on this planet, perhaps become a capitalist or maybe win the lottery, from that time on you must spend the rest of your time plotting against everyone else, and all that constant plotting of those endless attacks and the relentless, ruthless oppression against all those impoverished barbarians at the gate can take some of the pleasure out of living in the Garden. As the transformation continues apace, eventually you will have to become a very evil person, and soon enough you will be found plotting the machine gunning of a hundred thousand Guatemalans, because they are in your way, and if they get justice it might shorten your stay in that paltry Garden. Someone else will be plotting to enter that worthless Garden, and soon enough they will be plotting to take the land of some Guatemalan, maybe pillage the natural gas of some Bolivian, and thus we find the indigenous Guatemalans have been pushed off their land, and onto the less fertile mountain slopes, since apparently no one has yet found a way to get rich off of those mountain slopes, for if they ever did, those Guatemalans would have to either exterminated altogether, or pushed into the sea, and perhaps live on rafts or rickety house boats.

This is one thing (turning into an evil, ruthless oppressor) that people do not consider when they think of winning a lottery, and escaping to the paltry Garden, in that once they get there, their personality must begin to change, as they struggle with the latent guilt of taking so much pie, and as they deal with that guilt by coming up with devious ideologies which then cause them to join in the pollution of the public discourse with stupid nonsense, as they restlessly muddy the waters with their hooves.

None of this speaks well of that atheist Garden of Eden. It cannot be considered a selling point, but that thing continues to be sold nonetheless, because it is widely believed to be the only Garden, and therefore people aspire to that really bad place, because to do otherwise would mean staying put, and no one wants that, which doesn't speak well of the current world system, since everyone dreams of getting to hell out of that place.

A history of sand bagging

Which then brings me back to my discussion of 'the wedge strategy' I intend to employ against Capitalism, and patriarchy in general, for it is my intention to visit the Garden for free, the kind of Garden that won't cause me to turn into a ruthless prick, because it is free, and thus does not require that I take anything away from anyone else to get there.

Now any good gardener would know that if you plant a radish seed, you will grow a radish. When an experienced gardener finds the tiny leaves of radish popping up out of the soil, they instantly recognize the first signs of a growing radish plant, and they can then skillfully pluck the weeds that also have popped up around that seedling, while leaving that infant radish plant in the ground, because they are an experienced gardener, and thus they can recognize what is growing in that garden, even when it is still small. It does not take much experience as a gardener to recognize the full grown plant, and almost anyone can do that, but as I found out when experimenting with a garden a few years ago, it can be a challenge to distinguish that small plant from the small weeds which surround it in that Garden.

This leads me to ask the following question. 'Who has despised the day of small beginnings?' Not I. As you know I am currently reversing the aging process on that sun damaged nose of mine, which, as I said, I hope to have completed, or mostly completed, in time for Easter 2006. I have also noticed some hair regrowth. I have noticed radishes popping up in the Garden, and so I would expect to be harvesting radishes.

While I am busy using the hoe on my Garden, I would expect to hear those who will say, 'he won't grow any radishes.' This is to be expected, for you see, the violence and the corruption of this system has so permanently warped the minds of the people who live there that they now have eyes, but they cannot see, they have ears, but they cannot hear. Before anyone can enter this Garden they must turn themselves around, and become like little children once again, but for so many of those people, who have become so ruthlessly hardened in their hearts, that would not yet be possible, for that little child has been viciously crushed, and no longer exists, having been replaced by that other strange creature, the 'mature adult', who knows better than to believe such nonsense about radishes growing in the Garden, this turning out to be true even when you show them a radish, in which case they would either deny that it was a radish, or feel quite confident in their faithless ruined hearts that such a radish will no doubt be scorched by the sun and thus wither and die.

For the benefit of such ruthlessly crushed spirits, I thought maybe I could help things out a little by taking a brief tour of various other such radishes, by making a note of a history of sand bagging operations I have encountered over the years.

As I have said, back in 1975 I encountered a luminous flying craft at Banff National Park. It was stationary, and then popped into a cloud, the cloud then vanished, and there was nothing there. The craft followed me home going from one National Park to another, until I arrived back in Melville, Saskatchewan, which was where I lived at the time. Then followed a 'wave phenomena' where these craft appeared in various shapes and forms over the city, and were seen by many people, some of whom if they should happen to read this, would know what I mean. There was the glowing white orb. There was the long red cigar shaped object covered with blinking lights like a Christmas tree. There were the smaller objects that looked like two soup bowls placed together. The controversy grew until finally the objects briefly made the National News as a type of human interest story, while scientists attempted to explain it all through press releases about 'weather balloons' and then it was 'natural gas eruptions.' We got sand bagged really good that time, and if you are reading this and asking yourself 'where is the evidence, why don't we know,' well don't ask me, because I don't pile sand bags myself.

The next really significant sand bagging operation took place after Earth Day, 2001. What I did at the time was made the decision to achieve my big breakthrough, or so I thought, by aligning myself with those protests at the Summit of the Americas, only in this case I intended to unfurl my own banner, which I called 'the Eden Wing', which was to be a big wing made out of clouds, thousands of miles long, which would be unfurled over the Sahara desert as a sign, since you see, the Sahara was like the planet, a desert, and it was to become a Garden of Eden. The symbolism for that stunt was taken from a mythological legend I located in the Book of Revelations in the Bible, where we find a woman struggling to give birth, while a big red dragon waited to eat her child the very moment she gave birth. Well she did give birth, and her child was snatched right up to heaven, and as for the woman, she escaped from the dragon by sprouting the great wings of an Eagle, and then she flew off to a place prepared for her in the desert, where she was safe from the Dragon.

Now this seemed like a good symbol to use, since you see, the woman was that 'protest movement', which was struggling to give birth, and the Dragon, well little more needs to be said about that. In order for that stunt to work it was required that I go out on a limb, and so on Friday night, April 20th, two days before Earth Day, which was April 22nd, 2001, I went on a spamming campaign, and sent out what I called press releases about that wing, which I have documented on the following page. The page consists of links to news groups where the press release was posted on Friday, and at the end of the page is the text of that 'press release', which is this naive gullible sounding thing, since, at that time, it did not occur to me that you could not tell people something like that. It seemed perfectly normal to me, but as you can tell by reading the comments on those news groups, everyone there thought I was weirdo who should be 'handing out flowers at the airport' etc etc etc.

Two days later, on Tuesday, April 24th, 2001, one of these luminous craft appeared outside the space station while a live broadcast was underway, and was filmed by the cameras of the space shuttle. There was one small leak concerning this event, five weeks later, on June 1st, 2001, as documented on the following page.UFO video goes to Hollywood You will notice that the dateline of the story is June 1st, 2001...a quote from the article: "officials at NASA are said to have asked to examine the tape, because they believe it shows the same type of craft once spotted by the space agency's own cameras during a space shuttle mission." I then sent the following message to the CBC.

Subject: UFO on CBC Newsworld Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 11:26:05 -0600 I was watching the space station show on CBC Newsworld when I saw what looked like a UFO go speeding by from the lower left to the upper left hand side of the picture. It was during the last minute or two of the show..

Shortly after this the computers were knocked down on the space station. I understand there is supposed to be triple redundancy and it is odd to have all three systems knocked out, especially right after something like that happened. After having gotten sand bagged by the CBC, I then made an appeal to the Space Shuttle crew, but got sand bagged by NASA and their astronauts, not to mention their space scientists.

Now the way these sand bagging operations work is that you get sand bagged, and then for years afterwards you are forced to hold your nose and endure the offense of having a bunch of ignorant people ridicule you, while pointing out the lack of evidence for such stupid nonsense. There is an additional problem, in that even when you can show them some small evidence that something very unusual is going on, they are so brainwashed by the effects of that really bad system they live under, that they have eyes, but cannot see, and they have ears and cannot hear, so they are unable to respond, even when not sand bagged. Here I am referring to those press releases, followed by a big wing shaped like a cloud, over the Sahara, which was an interesting 'coincidence' or perhaps a 'random cloud mutation'.

So then I learned two valuable things from that experience. The first was just how persistent that pattern of sand bagging operations really is, in that whenever that system faces any sort of threat, the forces rally around and begin tossing sand bags, constructing a high wall. The second lesson I learned is just how deeply damaged the psychology of the people are who have been brainwashed and conditioned by that system, for it turns out that they cannot see and they cannot hear, having been changed into 'sensible mature adults' or whatever you want to call that thing that people transform into after having been brutalized and turned cynical by the violence and ruthlessness of that rotten system.

Therefore, given how cherished that rotten system really is and how very important it is to make sure that rotten system continues on, preferably forever and ever, it is no surprise I would suppose to find myself sand bagged once again while I grow radishes in the Garden. The way this is supposed to work, is that I will grow a radish, but because I was sand bagged while I was growing the thing, it can then be said that I grew no radish, because there was no proof that I grew a radish, and besides, I probably made the whole thing up about that radish. Now the correct way for scientists, as one example, to falsify an experiment is to falsify the experiment, which is obvious and the logical course of action. The wrong way to falsify my experiment is to sand bag me and then try to tell everyone that I was faking the whole thing.

Now as for those sand bags, and that big walled in dike over there, after giving the matter some thought, I am now predicting a great flood of some kind, such a great wall of water, that the dike will fail, and that system will be flooded and ruined by that flood, much as we saw Katrina doing to New Orleans. It turns out that those dikes weren't good enough to hold back a really powerful flood, and the same will prove true to that poorly constructed wall of sand bags. While that thing might be able to withstand a category one or a two or a three, there is a limit to what any wall of sand bags can withstand. There is no point in trying to save your rotten world system, because there really is nothing there worth saving, as everyone knows who ever dreamed of winning a lottery and getting to hell out of that rotten place.

Now as for that woman, I would suggest that she has now given birth and that her child has been snatched up to heaven, and therefore she should now fly off to Eden if she hasn't done so already, and ditch the Dragon. However I sometimes get ahead of things, so perhaps she is in labor and screaming out in pain, and is just about ready to give birth, in which case my advice to that woman would to push, push, push.

A message from Heaven

Once in a while I have the very strange experience of being spoken to by this 'roaring voice' up in the heavens. It doesn't happen very often. The last time it happened was after the cruel destruction of the city of Fallujah, when that voice told me repeatedly, numerous times, that since that Pentagon felt it was nothing to fight a Holy War, I was to announce the coming Jihad against the United States Pentagon. This would be a different type of war than people are used to, in that the same roaring voice I have heard, will then be heard by the Pentagon, only one hell of a lot worse, I would assume, after which they won't have much fight left in them, and it will be possible to simply walk over them and trample them underfoot, the same way that people trample mud under their feet.

Unfortunately, this plans relies on the Muslims, who are a stubborn people, and who have these doctrines which are wrong, and which they will not give up, and so therefore for them there is nothing but further humiliation for a time until they learn that what will be is what will be, and that they have no right to dictate or to give orders or to demand that such and such a thing be true or that things happen in such and such a way. Of course, now that I am growing radishes in the Garden, that might help those Muslims to see the light and get themselves straightened out, since there doctrine did not predict radishes, and yet radishes there will be, and apparently their doctrine of jihad is flawed as well, since it involves blowing things up, which doesn't work, which then explains the defeat of their jihad in Fallujah, and their continuing humiliations and any further humiliations to come.

Just three days ago I received another one of those roaring messages, this time for the Christian Church. I was told to say to those people, 'You flatten entire cities.' This was once again a reference to Fallujah. I would assume that what must be happening is that those churches are 'praying for our troops in Iraq,' and why the hell would someone want to say a prayer as offensive as that. I have been sitting here for three days pondering the naked hypocrisy of those praying churches. For example just recently some kids opened fire in the mall, and as they tried to gun down a rival gang, they mowed down some civilians in the cross fire, this taking place on Boxing Day, the day after Christmas, which made it seem all the more appalling. So many of our churches have not shut up about that incident to this very day, and according to their facile analysis, the only solution is something like a ten commandments slab in every school, and they need to be able to preach Jesus to those kids, so as to 'change their hearts', since apparently the source of such violence is the lack of Jesus. Therefore really bad liberals are responsible for such things since they won't let those churches into schools to save souls and thus prevent any carnage down at the shopping malls on Boxing Day.

Now it is well known that the form of moral teaching that states 'do as I say, not as I do' does not work with kids. So if you were planning to flatten entire shopping malls in Iraq, and then lecture kids about Jesus, so your own shopping malls can live in peace, you can expect your kids to tell you to shove your Jesus right up your ass, because you are obvious hypocrites, and apparently given the stupidity of your so called analysis of social problems, you are also blind hypocrites, those being hypocrites who do not even know they are hypocrites but are confused enough to think of themselves as righteous.

So when you lecture kids about how naughty violence is at the shopping mall, we can assume that a shrewd kid might answer back, 'but mommy, daddy, you level entire cities.' Therefore the hypocritical moral lesson being taught here, is that we must not open fire in shopping malls, and that we should pray for Jesus to change hearts, followed I would suppose by prayers for our authoritarian patriarchs as well as more of that praying for the success of our troops in Iraq. The moral lesson would then be, don't do your violence in our neighborhood. You do that in some neighborhood in some far away country. Wreck the shopping malls in Iraq, even level whole cities, but not in my back yard.'

The sin of sin

Now when we see such religious people displaying such naked hypocrisy, and when we notice that this a group phenomena, in that all such religious people are found to be equally idiotic, we know therefore that the problem lies with their religious ideology, which would then mean that such religious people are themselves the best evidence that you do not want to 'get saved' or else you will turn out like them.

This mind set is created by doctrines such as that of 'original sin' which teaches that the reason the world is full of violence is because humanity is organically violent having been 'born in sin'. Systems of domination require violence to perpetuate this form of rule, and as the violence perpetuates, it spawns more violence, and it is this endless cycle of violence that is then used as the justification for such doctrines as that of 'original sin'. In this way such doctrines actually serve to perpetuate and spawn sin, and thus no solution is offered but rather the result is the type of unenlightened mind which fosters sin on the planet. When the mind is turned stupid by such a doctrine, we then see blind hypocrisy, which both condemns violence, and considers it a justification for the doctrine of sin, as well as a justification for 'the need to be born again', the same stupidity justifies violence as required to crush original sin. Therefore given this confused mentality, religious hypocrites will lecture kids about shooting in shopping malls, but only if it is in their neighborhood, since no one lectures about flattening entire shopping malls in Iraq, or cutting down close to one hundred thousands innocent civilians in the cross fire, but rather we will pray for that, since that level of high powered violence is the type that should be prayed for and thus you won't hear a word of condemnation, even though it would be true that young males learn more from a really bad role model than they do from some facile hypocritical lecture.

The doctrine of sin justifies the huge spending on the military industrial complex, as well as the police state. This doctrine is always followed by a sharp turn towards right wing authoritarianism, militarism, and such things as the police state, and thus the doctrine of original sin prepares the ground for further domination by patriarchs, who now become saviors, depended upon to fight sin, and who are then armed to fight such sin, such arms then being employed to enforce domination, leading to more sin in a vicious circle. It is for reasons such as this that Adolph Hitler, as just one example, could only win a great majority of the vote in the German Bible Belt, since it was Christian churches that provided Hitler with his solid base of support. This happened because Christians accepted the doctrine of sin, as well as the related doctrines of 'the supreme Lordship of Jesus' and ideas of enslavement and obedience to authority, for heaven is not a democracy, they remind everyone, but the most powerful totalitarian state, where all individuals are crushed, giving Jesus complete control.

We know that brutalized people brutalize others. We also know that babies are not born 'sinful' and that in between the time a soft, cuddly baby is born and that baby grows up to become a monster, something must have happened. We also know that many different cultures exist in the world, each culture having formed in the same way, through the conditioning effect of what I will call 'peer pressure', which enforces inherited social norms, and results in the creation of a culture. Tradition therefore is the transmission mode for a type of viral infection that infects entire societies, since the bad is passed down for generation after generation along with the good or the simply innocuous. You can see this psychological process mystified in Christian theology, which speaks of a 'Holy Ghost' which 'convicts of sin', when actually what is happening is that the group is 'convicting of sin' and holding out the threat of 'excommunication', such a threat of withholding approval by the larger group being the disciplinary means by which culture is inculcated and loyalty is enforced. You often hear Christians talking about the reality of the experience of the Holy Ghost making them feel 'shame', which is not surprising, when you consider that the source of the shame is shaming Christians, who manipulate the human weakness that causes people to require acceptance, such inculcated shame then being employed as a wedge strategy to convince people of their 'need for the blood of Jesus.' This blood washes away sin and such 'grace' removes the shame, which is not surprising, since after that time Christians will stop their manipulations and offer group acceptance instead, which will then be celebrated as 'amazing grace'.

Such transparent manipulation of human nature can manufacture sins, something we can see in that some things are taboo in some cultures, and thus sins, while being considered acceptable in other cultures. For example there were cultures where the people wandered around naked, and much like Adam and Eve in the Garden parable, 'they were naked, but they felt no shame.' Today that same culture will be found swaddled in clothing to hide their shameful nakedness (which then suggests, when considered as a theological premise, that God must be a warp minded pervert). Such a transformation of entire cultures was successfully initiated by the relentless shaming and persecution of Christians, who invaded other cultures much like the snake in the Garden, and while promising to 'make people wise like God', only introduced shame and the fig leaf which would then be required to hide such shame.

The Garden of Eden parable is a sarcastic commentary on religion, and for this reason it is ironic that the parable became the source of the doctrine of a religion which emulated the very religion being condemned by that same parable. For in the mythological parable, we find Adam and Eve living in a Garden, going about naked and unashamed. They were not sinners, they were simply human beings. This all changed when they were trained in religion, and became 'wise like God' at which time they felt ashamed by their bodies and covered themselves with fig leaves. The point of the parable is quite obvious. Get that religion and you will get shamed and then next thing you know you will be found hiding that shame with a fig leaf. Next God will show up and ask in outrage who told you were naked, and then alas, because of religion, you will be kicked out of the Garden of Eden.

Now religious people will be found piling up those sand bags, building a high wall, cracked and bulging, which is destined to collapse in an instant, over whelmed by the flood, which will wash everything away in its path. For you see it is the doctrine of sin which is the sin of religion, and the source of all the problems with religion. This doctrine is irrational, since if humanity is sinful, blame the manufacturer. It is idiotic to consider the human body to be a shameful thing, that needs to hidden by fig leafs, and the moral hypocrisy is best revealed when we consider those bad prayers for violent cruelty, up to and including the leveling of entire cities, which then warps the minds of our young people, who emulate the rich and the powerful, by taking up arms and becoming powerful themselves, because they have guns, and who become tough minded themselves, because they know that life is cheap. While all this is going on, religious people will be found militantly fighting for the life of an egg, while letting children starve because that is natural death by starvation, and not murder, while at the same time relentlessly complaining about that fig leaf, since it would appear that after having becoming so wise that have become wise like God, that fig leaf is the only thing they care about. Violence doesn't concern them, in fact they pray for violence, provided that it is done by authoritarians and is done on a vast scale, and the shopping mall being leveled is not in their back yard.

Getting to know Jesus

Just recently, while monitoring religious broadcasts, I picked up an implied threat in that apparently the religious right is planning to deal with me by broadcasting my supposed sinfulness to the far ends of the earth. You see, such people are such stubborn bigots, that they cannot imagine that someone would ditch a fig leaf, and given that society is still infected with the concept of sexuality as sinful, as you can tell by all the lascivious gossip that follows the exposure of someone or another, it seems that the religious right feels that this would be useful tactic to employ, using that traditional shaming tactic to manufacture a sin which can then be exploited.

I already have my strategy devised to deal with them. It is the strategy of Jesus. Therefore, I plan to party and drink with porn stars, since that would be about the most provocative thing I could do, and since the big question is, 'what would Jesus do,' and that is what Jesus would do, I thought I would do that as well. For you see, porn stars are not notorious sinners, they are just human beings, and I would much prefer a porn star over such horrid sins as the flattening of entire cities and the blood bath of a mass murder, which is a sin, even if religious people don't think that it is a sin, since they are preoccupied with porn stars, because due to their obvious hypocritical confused minds, porn stars are the really big sin going down which needs the most attention right now, while brutal murderous oppression and acts of shocking cruelty are not sins, since the authorities are doing it, which makes it alright, since the authorities are fighting sin, which is good.. Actually the authorities are stealing oil, but it turns out that once one accepts Jesus, you don't notice that, and instead pray for our authoritarians instead, thus helping to spread more sin, which is the sin of the doctrine of sin, which is the irony of religion.

We can just barely recover the truth about Jesus by performing an autopsy on that corpse known as the Gospel of Mark. The rest of those gospels are almost useless, consisting of Greek Stoic philosophy (the Gospel of John) or doctored and edited versions of Mark (Matthew and Luke), such obvious doctoring then not constituting an historical source, since when Matthew edits Mark to make that story agree with his own ideology, we are not getting history here, but rather ideological spin doctoring. For this reason I propose going back to the original source, absent all the additional spin doctoring which just takes us farther away from history, and that would mean using only the Gospel of Mark in an attempt to reconstruct the historical Jesus.

This proves to be possible, for as bad as the Gospel of Mark is, Jesus was a controversial figure, and since Mark is forced to address those controversies, we can extract the controversies while throwing out the spin doctoring of that author of the Gospel of Mark, such spin doctoring only being necessary to change someone into a follower of that right wing hawk known as John the Baptist. For you see the followers of John the Baptist were the religious right of their day, and they were offended by Jesus, which then created the controversies which Mark then needed to spin doctor to make Jesus agreeable to the religious right who believed in the doctrine of sin.

We know from the controversy stories that Jesus insisted on provoking religious people right to their faces. For example he would do his harvesting on the Sabbath. This would enrage the religious right who would then say that 'six days there are to do your work, but not on the Sabbath.' This is true, and if a person did not want to provoke religious people of the day, it would have been a small matter for Jesus to avoid breaking the Sabbath. But apparently he wanted to provoke them and thus broke the Sabbath all the time, as you can tell by all those stories about Jesus breaking the Sabbath, which was a great big scandal of the day. Unfortunately, Mark does not want to get on the wrong side of the followers of John the Baptist, so he makes up excuses for Jesus and tries to spin doctor that controversy. Jesus was hungry, he tells us, thus he went harvesting on the Sabbath. This excuse is idiotic, since the Sabbath laws explicitly outlaw hunger as an excuse for breaking the Sabbath, and people were expected to get everything ready the day before, and if they did not they could starve for one day and learn a lesson about diligence. Mark carries on like this making one sorry excuse after another, finally topping it off by insisting that Jesus was an authoritarian, the 'Lord of the Sabbath,' which meant he could do what he wanted on the Sabbath, and which also meant that we should not be like Jesus, since we were not authoritarians ourselves, but rather we were to be obedient to the Lord, and this meant keeping the Sabbath. Therefore, according to Mark's tortured attempts at spin doctoring that Sabbath controversy, the morality of Jesus was right wing authoritarian in nature, being encapsulated in the phrase, 'do as I say, not as I do.' This is the same 'moral lesson' religious people want to teach our gun toting kids.

We also know that Jesus attacked the authority of the Bible, in particular the food laws and the clean and unclean laws. Mark deals with that controversy with more of his typical right wing spin doctoring, by telling us the Bible is an authority, but that it has some human traditions in it. Once those are done away with then the Bible can still be an authority. Thus Jesus was just criticizing a few bad laws. Of course Jesus was also attacking the laws on the Sabbath, but Mark won't admit that, and makes up excuses instead, since he doesn't want people breaking the Sabbath, thus following the bad example of Jesus, who had a special exemption, and therefore was not role model for everyone else.

We also know from Mark's Gospel that the story of Lent is actually a controversy story. For we are told that John the Baptist and those followers of his practiced lent and did repentance for their sinful ways, but Jesus and his followers, continuing his custom of provocation, did not practice Lent. In fact, they were drinking and partying with the worst sinners in town, instead of doing Lent. Mark deals with that scandalous behavior which so shocked the religious right, by admitting that, yes, Jesus did not believe in Lent and doing repentance for sins, but he tells us that was only because Jesus was marrying the church, and thus they needed to have a wedding party. Now that they were married, from now on the church would do repentance for sins just like John the Baptist, and practice Lent. For you see, we are told that on his very last day on earth Jesus swore off drinking and partying, and declared that from now on he would in fact be practicing Lent. The reason the gospel writers cook up this story, is that if they tried to tell people that Jesus swore off partying and drinking with sinners 'years ago' they would never get away with it, because people knew that Jesus was drinking and partying right up until the day he dropped dead. Now given that Mark was horrified by Jesus and his sins, and given how much Mark admired that hawk named John the Baptist, and his doctrine of repentance of sins and saving sinners from frying in hell, Mark needed to come up with some excuse to tell people not to ask what would Jesus do, since our gospel writers didn't want that. Well think of the sinfulness. As for the fact that Jesus, continuing his policy of provocation, insisted on partying and drinking with sex workers and every other 'worst sinner in town', our Gospel writer tells us that he only did that because he knew they were going to burn in hell, and that they were sick, and therefore they needed a doctor. This technique of saving sinners by sinning with them is not much practiced these days, since it would be unlikely to work, and is another fine example of the idiotic spin doctoring of Gospel writers, who really didn't like Jesus, but preferred that John the Baptist, because he was a right wing hawk, and thus much more religious than Jesus ever was.

It seemed appropriate to me to indulge in this little discussion, especially now, during Lent, so that if anyone asks the question 'what would Jesus do', we can answer by saying he would not practice Lent, but instead, because it was Lent, he would go partying and drinking with sinners. You see, according to Jesus, you should only practice repentance of sins hours before you drop dead, for to do so any earlier than that would cause you to miss to many parties, and as for Lent, well Lent and repentance for sins is something best done after you are dead, for that is how Jesus did it. Which does make 'heaven' sound less appealing, given all the right wing hawks in the place practicing Lent and repentance of sins, about the only thing I can think of that might make heaven an appealing option would be that it would be better than frying in hell, which is what happens to people when they didn't get baptized by John the Baptist and practice Lent and repentance of sinfulness, thus getting tossed into hell for their neglect.

Now as for the difference between Jesus and that invader known as John the Baptist, not only was Jesus a much more humane, sensible, and interesting person than that evangelical hawk who converted Christians along with everyone else, if you follow John the Baptist, you will be turned into an obviously idiotic hypocrite, as I described above, whereas if you followed Jesus instead of becoming a shamed and condemned sinner, you would become a human being.

homepage: homepage: http://www.awitness.org